Subject: Re: rfc2223bis draft 07, "updates" clarification

From: Bob Braden <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:39:43 -0800 (PST)

Julian,

Hi.  I believe that the problem your pointing out is real, common, and
not so easy to solve.

First, you might regard the given definition of Updates as a
"best-effort" definition, with all that "best-effort" implies.  ;-)  I
am sure that serious suggestions on a more precise definition would be
welcome, but it is unclear how much effort one ought to lavish on
word-smithing here.  The word "updates" in its common usage seems to
carry the desired meaning.

The RFC Editor and the IESG frequently struggle with the semantics
of the relationships among related RFCs.  It is clear that the categories
"Obsoletes" and "Updates" are only the high-order bits of often complex
relationships.  One could add "Partially Updates" and "Partially
Obsoletes" I suppose, but it is not clear where to stop or whether this
will really meet the need. We have recently been advocating the
creation of a series of area-specific "road-map" documents to
summarize these relationships; this would get around the limited
number of bits in the present categories.

Finally, we note that there is an alternative way to do business: the
IETF could shape its documents to fit the categories.  That is
essentially what more formal standards bodies do.  The IETF, for good
reason, chooses instead to let documents develop in the most expedient
fashion, and then notate them with (approximate) notations like
Obsoletes and Updates.

Bob Braden

  *> 
  *> Hi,
  *> 
  *> I'd like to see the concept of an RFC "updating" another RFC clarified. 
  *> Currently the draft says:
  *> 
  *>           Updates
  *> 
  *>              Specifies an earlier document whose contents are modified or
  *>              augmented by the new document.  The new document cannot be
  *>              used alone, it can only be used in conjunction with the
  *>              earlier document.
  *> 
  *> The second statement seems to be misleading. For instance, RFC2396 (URI 
  *> syntax) updates previous RFCs that also contained specific URI scheme 
  *> descriptions (such as "ftp"). Thus, it doesn't obsolete them. However, 
  *> RFC2396 clearly can be used without the documents it's updating.
  *> 
  *> Regards, Julian
  *> 
  *> 
  *>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 20:49:35 +0100

> fashion, and then notate them with (approximate) notations like

Bob,

thanks for the clarification. I think that "updates" and "obsoletes" is 
really sufficient (if there's more to say the new spec should clearly 
state that in the introduction anyway). The only issue seems to be that 
RFC2223bis is very restrictive in what "updates" is supposed to mean, 
both not matching what I happen to need :-), and what historically is't 
been used for. Looking at the original text in RFC2223:

    Updates

       To be used as a reference from a new item that cannot be used
       alone (i.e., one that supplements a previous document), to refer
       to the previous document.  The newer publication is a part that
       will supplement or be added on to the existing document; e.g., an
       addendum, or separate, extra information that is to be added to
       the original document.

This seems to be less restrictive and explicitly allows for instance 
what RFC2396 does (updating the definitions of URI syntax without 
updating the descriptions of particular URI schemes).

Regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760